I don't get why Obama doesn't Just Say it.

[corplinx]

My statement is still 'correct' in that there is no 'other' group to be taxed. It's all tax money from Americans. The fact that some Americans don't pay taxes is a separate issue.

Your 'correction' is also just plain wrong, which I pointed out in saying that we already pay for it. That isn't changing.

No, its still wrong. I am surprised you didn't step back off that argument immediately and instead sought tangents or semantics.

Your rhetorical statement.

If everyone is covered under UHC, and everyone's tax money is used, who do you suppose these 'other' people are?

And I basically pointed out that this rhetorical argument is based on a faulty premise.

I can explain this again in some other way if it might help. Diagram?

Shared risk pools don't work too well when only half the insured are paying. Everyone should have to pay something (assuming they aren't on welfare) even if its only a buck a month. Do away with the free lunch mentality.

 

[daredelvis]

I don't think the opinion in the OP is accurate, but if one is asking why a politician is not being forthright about the tough decisions, like raising taxes, they should ask Michael Dukakis.

Daredelvis

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And there is nothing in the current bill that will bring down costs, in fact it's likely to increase them.

I think the universal mandate is intended to help bring costs down. (ETA: what I had here was horribly worded. Instead I'll just say that if we require low-risk people to pay in, they are the ones who are most likely to pay in more than they take out.)

Also, the insurance exchange is part of the bill. It too is intended to spread the risk out over more payers.

And the insurance reforms that do away with virtual state-wide monopolies are predicted to lower costs.

And the public option is also intended to spur competition and lower premiums (aside from providing an affordable alternative for the currently uninsured).

Now you might think that these measures won't be very effective, but I don't think it's fair to say there's nothing in the bill.

I agree that we could achieve universal access to healthcare AND significantly lower costs by switching to a single payer system. This health insurance reform bill will probably do neither very successfully, but will still be better than what we've got now. (Unfortunately, I think passing this will further entrench the insurance system as the way the U.S. does healthcare, meaning a single payer system will never happen.)

 

[corplinx]

I don't think the opinion in the OP is accurate, but if one is asking why a politician is not being forthright about the tough decisions, like raising taxes, they should ask Michael Dukakis.

Daredelvis

Dukakis answered a question badly in a debate and that pretty much sunk him. Sadly. I think that a very patriotic "let's all pitch in together" spin on a tax increase with the right marketing could be effective. The problem is, taxing anyone but the rich has become a political third rail in this country. There has to be a mindset change.

People feel taxed to death even though more people than ever are only paying their state/local/FICA. Federal income taxes are at modern era lows.

Maybe Obama could pitch a "everyone pays 1 percent more" campaign and actually fix the current horrible tax code to never drop below 1 percent so we fix negative taxation.

 

[Meadmaker]

Dukakis answered a question badly in a debate and that pretty much sunk him.

But Walter Mondale said he would raise taxes, and won 14 electoral votes.

The lesson was not lost on later candidates.

 

[daredelvis]

But Walter Mondale said he would raise taxes, and won 14 electoral votes.

The lesson was not lost on later candidates.

You are correct. My mistake.

Daredelvis

 

[tyr_13]

Shared risk pools don't work too well when only half the insured are paying. Everyone should have to pay something (assuming they aren't on welfare) even if its only a buck a month. Do away with the free lunch mentality.

And this is what is being proposed. What was your objection again? Oh right, repeating memes and attaching them to a reasonable sounding opening.

Still haven't answered if you think those 'free lunchers' should be able to use our roads or schools. Still wrong about how we don't pay for health care now.

The premise is that every American is subject to taxes, and government programs don't cut people out for not being able to pay taxes. If half of Americans don't pay taxes, that is a separate problem and doesn't make them this 'other people'. They are still Americans damnit.


EDIT: Here you go.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I agree with the idea that it is a moral imperative to cover everyone even if we have to pay more for it. I am willing to pay more.

However, there is a fly in the ointment here:

Total spending on health care, per person, 2007
United States: $7290
United Kingdom: $2992
Italy: $2686
Spain: $2671
Japan: $2581 (2006)


If we went to a single payer system like they have overseas, is it unreasonable to think we might pay less consider the statistics above?

If we went to any truly UHC we might pay less. As a % of GDP, the Netherlands (non single-payer) pays less than Canada or France (both Single Payer). Switzerland and Germany (non single-payer) also pay less than France (signle-payer).

This is assuming that the type of payer system is the main driver of cost, of course. But even if it is, the major issue is UHC or non-UHC, not single-payer vs. non single-payer.

 

[WildCat]

The answer should be pretty obvious; if it takes the form of mandatory health insurance, the money comes from health insurance premiums.

You're assuming that everyone will sign up for this "mandatory" insurance, rather than pay a fine that is a small percentage of what health insurance premiums would cost them.

What's the rational choice? Pay $5,500 a year for health insurance, or pay the $250 fine for not having health insurance, knowing that if you do get sick you can then sign up for health insurance and it will cover your pre-existing condition?

This is possibly the most stupid piece of legislation ever passed by the US HoR.

 

[WildCat]

I think the universal mandate is intended to help bring costs down. (ETA: what I had here was horribly worded. Instead I'll just say that if we require low-risk people to pay in, they are the ones who are most likely to pay in more than they take out.)

It could actually do that, if the mandate had teeth. A small fine which is a fraction of the cost of insurance, coupled with a requiremet for insurance companies to accept all pre-existing conditions, is likely to have the opposite effect.

Also, the insurance exchange is part of the bill. It too is intended to spread the risk out over more payers.

How will it do that? Will insurance companies be allowed to sell across state lines?

And the insurance reforms that do away with virtual state-wide monopolies are predicted to lower costs.

What reform would that be?

And the public option is also intended to spur competition and lower premiums (aside from providing an affordable alternative for the currently uninsured).

It will do neither. As has been pointed out numerous times, even if you removed all health insurance profits and administrative costs from the cost of health care, you'd save a whopping 5% of the costs. And that's the best case scenario. There will be administrative costs, and even worse will be the temptation to subsidize the "public option" with tax dollars. I don't think Congress can resist the temptation.

Now you might think that these measures won't be very effective, but I don't think it's fair to say there's nothing in the bill.

I do, for the reasons above.

I agree that we could achieve universal access to healthcare AND significantly lower costs by switching to a single payer system. This health insurance reform bill will probably do neither very successfully, but will still be better than what we've got now. (Unfortunately, I think passing this will further entrench the insurance system as the way the U.S. does healthcare, meaning a single payer system will never happen.)

You're working on the assumption that the costs of health care are made up in large part from insurance company profits and costs, which simply isn't true.

If costs are to come down to be comparable with other western nations it will be at the delivery side of the equation.

Right now, it's like thinking you're going to bring down the operating costs of your Lamborghini to be comparable to your neighbor's Camry by putting in fresh spark plugs. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What's the rational choice? Pay $5,500 a year for health insurance, or pay the $250 fine for not having health insurance, knowing that if you do get sick you can then sign up for health insurance and it will cover your pre-existing condition?

I'm not sure where you're getting your information. The summary of the bill says, "Those who choose to not obtain coverage will pay a penalty capped at 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income above a specified level." It will also provide sliding scale affordability credits. For people just above the Medicare eligibility limits, these credits are designed to make their premiums more affordable. I doubt very much there is anyone who will face a choice between $5,500 in annual premiums or a $250 fine.

The plan also calls for reducing the Medicare budget by something like half a billion dollars (without affecting benefits).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Re: single payer.

You're working on the assumption that the costs of health care are made up in large part from insurance company profits and costs, which simply isn't true.

No, I'm working under the crazy assumption that if you removed these costs and profits, the cost of providing healthcare would fall.

And my assumption is largely based on looking at countries that have such a system and pay a lot less per capita than we do.

 

[Trakar]

I think the universal mandate is intended to help bring costs down. (ETA: what I had here was horribly worded. Instead I'll just say that if we require low-risk people to pay in, they are the ones who are most likely to pay in more than they take out.)

Also, the insurance exchange is part of the bill. It too is intended to spread the risk out over more payers.

And the insurance reforms that do away with virtual state-wide monopolies are predicted to lower costs.

And the public option is also intended to spur competition and lower premiums (aside from providing an affordable alternative for the currently uninsured).

Now you might think that these measures won't be very effective, but I don't think it's fair to say there's nothing in the bill.

I agree that we could achieve universal access to healthcare AND significantly lower costs by switching to a single payer system. This health insurance reform bill will probably do neither very successfully, but will still be better than what we've got now. (Unfortunately, I think passing this will further entrench the insurance system as the way the U.S. does healthcare, meaning a single payer system will never happen.)

Careful there that all sounds pretty reasonable, a sure sign that it doesn't belong in a political discussion thread!

Personally, I'd prefer full on national healthcare, but then I happen to think that the VA medical system is one of the better healthcare systems on the planet. But statistics and personal experience can be deceiving, I guess. But, I'm not alone in that assessment - VA Outranks Private Sector in Health Care Patient Satisfaction

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How will it do that? Will insurance companies be allowed to sell across state lines?

What reform would that be?

Again, from the summary:

Ending the Antitrust Exemption for Health Insurers. By eliminating the antitrust exemption for health insurers and medical malpractice insurers, the bill increases competition in the insurance marketplace. It will remove their shield that has allowed them to price fix, divide up territory, and effectively create monopolies in particular markets.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Right now, it's like thinking you're going to bring down the operating costs of your Lamborghini to be comparable to your neighbor's Camry by putting in fresh spark plugs. Ain't gonna happen.

I'm confused here. You put that below my paragraph saying I'd prefer a single payer system to the reform package (such as the one just passed in the House). Which are you comparing to changing spark plugs?

I'd say the single payer system is more analogous to establishing a public mass transit system rather than relying on taxi cab service or each person owning his own car. At least in terms of operating costs.

At any rate, I agree with you that of the two goals of the health insurance reform bill (universal access and reduced costs), while it's not likely to achieve either, it focuses more on universal access than on reducing costs.

 

[Trakar]

Of course, we could just mandate that health insurance be a non-profit venture like it is everywhere on the planet except in the US.

 

[corplinx]

If half of Americans don't pay taxes, that is a separate problem and doesn't make them this 'other people'. They are still Americans damnit.

Nationalism isn't a cover for shifting goalposts sir. It just makes it more shameless.

 

[WildCat]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information. The summary of the bill says, "Those who choose to not obtain coverage will pay a penalty capped at 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income above a specified level." It will also provide sliding scale affordability credits. For people just above the Medicare eligibility limits, these credits are designed to make their premiums more affordable. I doubt very much there is anyone who will face a choice between $5,500 in annual premiums or a $250 fine.

"2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income above a specified level". If your income as adjusted above is $50,000 (meaning you probably actually make well above that) your maximum fine is $1,250. And I think it's actually capped at less than that, $750? Anyway, even if it's $1,250 do you think you could buy health insurance for $1,250 a year? Better off waiting until you get sick, yes?

The plan also calls for reducing the Medicare budget by something like half a billion dollars (without affecting benefits).

We'll see.

Re: single payer.

No, I'm working under the crazy assumption that if you removed these costs and profits, the cost of providing healthcare would fall.

And my assumption is largely based on looking at countries that have such a system and pay a lot less per capita than we do.

Those countries do it in a variety of ways, but the mere existence of single-payer isn't one of them. In fact, many do it without a single-payer system.

Again, from the summary:

Does that allow insurers to sell across state lines?

 

[Thunder]

Of course, we could just mandate that health insurance be a non-profit venture like it is everywhere on the planet except in the US.

oh, well now, that would be against freedom!!

 

[Merko]

If the CBO says it will reduce deficits, which they apparently do, then I would ask for some arguments from those who claim it will not.

Obviously, current proposals are carefully crafted to not upset too many parts of the health care industry all at once, and for this reason there will not be the kind of savings there could be if they simply adopted the health care system of any other advanced nation. But politics is the art of the possible.